Effective Leadership in a High-Tech Corporate Environment - Thesis Example

Leaders are charged with managing uncertainty, managing new ideas and managing stability (Wilson and Barnacoat, 1994:186). Wilson and Barnacoat (1996:188) state that, "To master change we need to master all three of these areas," and it is useful to learn how others achieve this "metabolic balance". It is important to call on multiple approaches to gain an understanding of the ways in which schools conceptualise their futures, plan action and produce new practices (Blackmore, Bigum, Hodgens, Laskey (1996:198). Mortimore (1996:158) claims that a most crucial research goal is that of establishing reliable techniques for transforming ineffective schools. What others do successfully can be some criteria for changing such schools, remembering that success is dependent on factors in given situations. It is a case of evaluating educational applications and dealing with the controversies, thus seeking improvement (Sylwester, 1996:5 as cited by Mortimore, 1996:262). This might mean having sufficient influence to empower staff to become subtle sculptors (moving skilfully with the change) and lively wrestlers (struggling successfully with change) rather than being fretful followers (worrying about and implementing every detail of change) or lively litterbugs (discarding any new innovation) (Morine-Dershimer, 1992:3-4). The message of change is one of working with creative tension which lies between the current reality and the vision (Braham, 1995:77). No one wants to become the leader it’s actually the need of situation that make the leaders. But these situations vary from time to time as well as situation to situation. As a result effective leadership in a high-tech corporate environment is different from the leadership in the battle ground.Well you can easily define the leadership but in terms of practical it is not easy to implement in the organization. To become good leader you have flexible in your behavior towards your employers and secondly you have the skills to manipulate them. As a result the good leaders are followed because people trust and respect them, rather than the skills they possess. Leadership is different to management. ”Management relies more on planning, organisational and communications skills. Leadership relies on management skills too, but more so on qualities such as integrity, honesty, humility, courage, commitment, sincerity, passion, confidence, positivity, wisdom, determination, compassion and sensitivity”( Olivio, B.J., Bernard, M.B. (1988) Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Press.). Nowadays the importance’s of ethical leaders are increasing in the organization because they are following the standard SOPs of leadership and the world is more transparent and connected than it has ever been. To get the better results in the organistaion the great leader has to understand the needs of his employers and aspire to leading people. Many of these new approaches to examining leadership, particularly cognitive and cultural theories, is the notion of social constructivism and/or constructivism. Social constructivism is the belief that reality is developed through peoples interpretation of the world and a denial of essences. Reality is a social and cultural construction, not an idealized form beyond our immediate perception. By examining multiple interpretations, a shared sense of reality can be detected, yet, our understanding of reality is always partial and imperfect. Constructivism is a philosophy founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own "rules" and "mental models," which we use to make sense of our experiences. The cognitive perspective is more aligned with the constructivism perspective, while the cultural perspective is closer to the social constructivist perspective (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989; Kezar, 2001). More recently, postmodern theorizing of leadership has also been conducted. Postmodern scholars challenge universal truths and essences because there is no objective vantage point (or reality) and our perceptions are the only thing we can come to know (Grint, 1997). They also question whether universal essences or truths even exist beyond our perceptions. Instead, knowledge is seen as contingent to local conditions and contexts. There are two philosophy about leaders are: They have the "right stuff" and the leadership is situational to become good leaders. Besides good leaders have the "ability to inspire trust and build relationships.".. Different levels of organization require different leadership; different kinds of organizations, different cultures. The most popular situational leadership approach was developed by Hersey and Blanchard. It is based on a two by two matrix. On one side is high and low task leadership; the other dimension is high and low on relationship behavior. The result is four different possible styles: Telling (high task/low relationship behaviour). This style or approach is characterized by giving a great deal of direction to subordinates and by giving considerable attention to defining roles and goals. The style was recommended for dealing with new staff, or where the work was menial or repetitive, or where things had to be completed within a short time span. Subordinates are viewed as being unable and unwilling to ‘do a good job’. Selling (high task/high relationship behaviour). Here, while most of the direction is given by the leader, there is an attempt at encouraging people to ‘buy into’ the task. Sometimes characterized as a ‘coaching’ approach, it is to be used when people are willing and motivated but lack the required ‘maturity’ or ‘ability’. Participating (high relationship/low task behaviour). Here decision-making is shared between leaders and followers – the main role of the leader being to facilitate and communicate. It entails high support and low direction and is used when people are able, but are perhaps unwilling or insecure (they are of ‘moderate to high maturity’ (Hersey 1984). Delegating (low relationship/low task behaviour). The leader still identifies the problem or issue, but the responsibility for carrying out the response is given to followers. It entails having a high degree of competence and maturity (people know what to do, and are motivated to do it). THE CONTINGENCY APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP The trait approach was based on the idea that leadership can be predicted by considering the impact of one variable, the personality of the leader. The style approach was also based on the idea that leadership can be explained through the effect of one variable, the manner by which the leader leads. The situational approach was likewise based on the idea that the style that a leader should adopt is based on one variable, the situation in which the leader is in. The trait, style, situational, and contingency approaches to group leadership all have noteworthy implications for the practice of leadership. The trait approach describes how a persons personality may help determine whether other group members see that person as a leader. The style approach explains the effect that the way in which the leader leads has on a group. The situational approach accounts for when a leader should use one style rather than another. The contingency theory is concerned with how leadership traits and styles can effect how successful a leader will be in differing group situations. Understanding Leadership Styles The leadership styles we look at here are: * Autocratic leadership * Bureaucratic leadership * Charismatic leadership * Democratic leadership or Participative leadership * Laissez-faire leadership * People-oriented leadership or Relations-Oriented leadership * Servant leadership * Task-oriented leadership * Transactional leadership * Transformational leadership Autocratic Leadership Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leader has absolute power over his or her employees or team. Employees and team members have little opportunity for making suggestions, even if these would be in the team or organization’s interest. Bureaucratic leaders work “by the book”, ensuring that their staff follow procedures exactly. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances or at heights) or where large sums of money are involved (such as cash-handling). Charismatic Leadership A charismatic leadership style can appear similar to a transformational leadership style, in that the leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or her team, and is very energetic in driving others forward. However, a charismatic leader tends to believe more in him- or herself than in their team. This can create a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave: In the eyes of their followers, success is tied up with the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and needs long-term commitment from the leader. Democratic Leadership or Participative Leadership Although a democratic leader will make the final decision, he or she invites other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving employees or team members in what’s going on, but it also helps to develop people’s skills. Employees and team members feel in control of their own destiny, such as the promotion they desire, and so are motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. This French phrase means “leave it be” and is used to describe a leader who leaves his or her colleagues to get on with their work. It can be effective if the leader monitors what is being achieved and communicates this back to his or her team regularly. Most often, laissez-faire leadership works for teams in which the individuals are very experienced and skilled self-starters. Unfortunately, it can also refer to situations where managers are not exerting sufficient control. People-Oriented Leadership or Relations-Oriented Leadership The style of leadership is the opposite of task-oriented leadership: the leader is totally focused on organizing, supporting and developing the people in the leader’s team. A participative style, it tends to lead to good teamwork and creative collaboration. A highly task-oriented leader focuses only on getting the job done, and can be quite autocratic. He or she will actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organise and monitor. However, as task-oriented leaders spare little thought for the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff. Task-oriented leaders can use the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid to help them identify specific areas for development that will help them involve people more. Transactional Leadership Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity. Alternatively a transactional leader could practice “management by exception”, whereby, rather than rewarding better work, he or she would take corrective action if the required standards were not met. A good leader will find him- or herself switching instinctively between styles according to the people and work they are dealing with. This is often referred to as “situational leadership”. For example, the manager of a small factory trains new machine operatives using a bureaucratic style to ensure operatives know the procedures that achieve the right standards of product quality and workplace safety. The same manager may adopt a more participative style of leadership when working on production line improvement with his or her team of supervisors Transcendental Leadership The transcendent leader is the leader who really cares for the good of the organization and the people who work in it. The transcendental leader generates a type of commitment among his co-workers based on personal trust and transcendent motivation. Collaborators are not only motivated by the extrinsic (money, status) and intrinsic (learning, challenge) rewards, but also by motives that transcend their self-interest, such as the good of the organization and the good of the people who can get a benefit from their job. The co- workers are personally committed to the leader to fulfill a worthwhile mission. They want to identify with a cause that is meaningful and makes a difference. They will follow not only the leaders demands but also what the leader does not ask for but they perceive it is important, even if it is hard and they dont enjoy doing it In Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership can be thought of as a set of behaviors of individuals who accomplish change. As stated by Lashway, Mazzarella, and Grundy (1995), "Anything that leads to change is transformational " (emphasis in original, p. 60). Transformational leaders make decisions based on a broad perspective, organizational vision and mission, group goals, and network development. Some of the "behaviors" of transformational leaders—applicable in both educational and business settings—may include the following: * Identifying and articulating an organizational vision. * Fostering acceptance of group goals. * Having high performance expectations. * Providing appropriate models. * Providing intellectual stimulation. * Developing a strong school culture (Lashway, Mazzarella, & Grundy, 1995, pp. 60-62) Fullan (2002) studied the characteristics of successful business and school leaders and found five qualities or "action-and-mind sets" that distinguish transformational leaders: * A strong sense of moral purpose. * An understanding of the dynamics of change. * An emotional intelligence as they build relationships. * A commitment to developing and sharing new knowledge. * A capacity for coherence making (enough coherence on the edge of chaos to still be creative). (Fullan, 2002, p. 15) Situation leadership Situations are understood by examining the context, relationships, and their connectedness to other things—not by analyzing their individual parts or properties. Leaders can draw on systems thinking as one approach to make sense of whats going on. In the systems approach, the properties of the parts can be understood only from the perspective of the organization as a whole. Accordingly, systems thinking concentrates not on basic building blocks, but on basic principles of organization. Systems thinking is "contextual," which is the opposite of analytical thinking. Analysis means taking something apart in order to understand it; systems thinking means putting it into the context of the larger whole (Capra, 1996). Versatile Leadership Executive leaders must have more than one approach to leadership and must understand when a particular style or set of behaviors is most appropriate. Successful leaders recognize that each situation may require them to modify their style or even stretch their typical or preferred way of working with others to meet the needs of people and the requirements of the situation: "Imagine a job that requires an Army officers leadership skills, a CEOs management expertise, a lawyers negotiating talents and an educators understanding of how to teach children. Thats what it takes to be a school superintendent [principal or director] in the 21st century." (Hurwitz, 2002, p. 1) Relational Leadership Perhaps the most important asset of an organization is people and their capacity to learn. A critical component of organizational learning is the development of its people. The role of the leader is to ensure that learning is a core strategy for ensuring the organizations success. The goals of learning involve building knowledge, analyzing systems and problem solving, and generating creative responses to the future. Much of what is experienced as organizational learning is obtained through a process of sharing collective wisdom and creating opportunities for people to develop new perspectives and understanding. * Systems thinking—a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge, and tools useful to identify the underlying patterns of systems. * Personal mastery—the process of clarifying a personal vision and making a commitment to accomplish what matters most. * Mental models—using inquiry to uncover the assumptions that influence our actions and hold them up to scrutiny. * Building shared vision—the process of unearthing a shared vision and purpose for the future. * Team learning—group interaction to transform thinking and take action through the process of dialogue and discussion. THE STYLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP The basic premise of the style approach to leadership is that a leaders "style" determines his or her success. A style is the method of leading that a person uses. 1. Authoritarian leaders a. These leaders determined all policies for the group members. They told the boys which projects to do. b. They also dictated the methods and stages of goal attainment one step at a time. The adults would give instructions for a subsequent step only after the boys had completed the previous step. They did not give them all of the instructions at once at the beginning of a project. The researchers reasoned that the boys would have little understanding of the project as a whole if the leaders gave them instructions in this step-by-step manner. Without an understanding of the whole project, the boys would have little ability to make their own creative contributions to the assignment. This meant that the leader would have increased control over their activities. Remember that according to Lewin, the authoritarian leader wants group members to reach the leaders goals, not their own. 2. Democratic leaders a. These leaders encouraged the group to make its own policy. They asked the boys which projects they wanted to do. 3 - group - where the leader and the group make the decision together. 4 - delegative - where the group makes the decision without the leader. Many of these new approaches to examining leadership, particularly cognitive and cultural theories, is the notion of social constructivism and/or constructivism. Social constructivism is the belief that reality is developed through peoples interpretation of the world and a denial of essences. Reality is a social and cultural construction, not an idealized form beyond our immediate perception. By examining multiple interpretations, a shared sense of reality can be detected, yet, our understanding of reality is always partial and imperfect. Constructivism is a philosophy founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own "rules" and "mental models," which we use to make sense of our experiences. The cognitive perspective is more aligned with the constructivism perspective, while the cultural perspective is closer to the social constructivist perspective (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989; Kezar, 2001). More recently, postmodern theorizing of leadership has also been conducted. Postmodern scholars challenge universal truths and essences because there is no objective vantage point (or reality) and our perceptions are the only thing we can come to know (Grint, 1997). They also question whether universal essences or truths even exist beyond our perceptions. Instead, knowledge is seen as contingent to local conditions and contexts. · One of the most influential studies of contingency or situational leadership was completed by Vroom and Yetton (1973) and later by Vroom and Jago (1989). This model suggests leadership style is determined by the situation and decision making structures. They identified five decision-making styles: Autocratic 1 - Problem is solved using information already available. Autocratic 2 - Additional information is obtained from group before leader makes decision. Consultative 1 - Leader discusses problem with subordinates individually, before making a decision. Consultative 2 - Problem is discussed with the group before deciding. Group 2 - Group decides upon problem, with leader simply acting as chair. A1 Autocrat: You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at that time. A2 Consultative Autocrat 1: You obtain the necessary information from your subordinates, then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You do not necessarily tell your subordinates what the problem is while getting the information from them. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing the necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions. C1 Consultative Autocrat 2: You share the problem with relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinates influence. C2 Consultative Autocrat 3: You share the problem with your subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinates influence. G2 Consensus Seeker: You share the problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of a chairman. You do not try to influence the group to adopt "your" solution and you are willing to adopt and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group. SUMMARY In the beginning, some scientists believed that certain people had special qualities that would cause them to assume leadership positions in any situation. This was the trait approach to leadership. Researchers attempted to find specific characteristics that distinguished leaders from other group members. They were not able to do so. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that the trait approach is flawed. Studies have shown that leadership ability differs among tasks. Thus, we cannot believe that leaders are consistent across different circumstances. However, traits do appear to influence group members perception of who should lead. Certain traits are associated with leadership in the minds of group members. These perceptions are consistent across situations. Lastly, leadership involves the process of motivating people. This is far different than the management functions that are delegated as controlling and problem solving. As per management, the matter of control is paramount. Controlling is the function of ensuring that policies, procedures or systems are adhered to strictly to conform to quality design and features. Obviously, this is highly managerial in nature. Problem solving is a rational process to establish causes or conditions or situations that require solutions. It is an orchestrated and systematic decision-making process that coincides perfectly with managerial skills and abilities. Motivating people, however, is a leadership process. It means keeping people in the right direction through appealing to their needs as outlined, for example, by Maslow’s and Herzberg’s theories of motivational psychology. This includes feelings of belonging, making a difference, and acknowledgment for a job well done Regarding the “one best way” or universal theory verses the contingency theories; we need to understand a basic truth. Yes, leadership does require different approaches and methods for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Allow me to provide some examples. A leader may need to use a different set of skills to motivate individuals who have “tenure” or are protected by a union in contrast to temporary or part time employees. Often leaders may use different traits when working in the private sector when compared to the public sector. The leadership skills needed to motivate followers who are unskilled and alienated are different than for a group who are highly skilled and deeply motivated. Because of cultural differences, the role of police chief may require different leadership skills in the United States than in China. Exhibiting leadership to a group of executives is often different than leading the mailroom staff. Recently I had a conversation with a prominent social advocate and political leader in the state of New Jersey. She told me one of the most difficult tasks she has ever encountered was to attempt to build a consensus among a room full of other influential leaders and executives. This situation called upon her to use a unique set of leadership skills since they all wanted to be the most influential and to lead! The best way for a leader to encourage a “learning organization” is to promote the value of knowledge and reward learning in any situation or environment. Yes, some leadership behaviors are universal because they are built upon an ethical foundation of respect and high regard for people! Why are these values universal? Because smart leaders know that people are their greatest natural resource and people treated with dignity, care and genuine concern are the most productive. People who are properly motivated, encouraged, trained and appreciated will far out perform others who are disrespected, discouraged, neglected or abused. In the 21st century, this is the competitive edge. Example “Lets take the example of building community. Within a predominantly African American context this might mean storytelling, communal dialogue, and making spiritual connections. Yet African American communities are unique; thus, the leader needs to be attentive to the pluralness of African American community. In a more heterogonous environment with multiple ethnic or racial groups, building community might mean understanding differences, developing ground rules, and developing respect for cultural heritage. Leaders and leadership become focused more on the way that any action can only be understood in relation to the context and events. This is a different approach or mindset from the tradition of identifying and transmitting universal ideas about how to be a successful leader. It is also not situational leadership where you are matching idealized situation types with leader traits/preferences. The leader is seen as more adaptable to varying contexts and contexts are more local and varied than in situational or contingency models. Immediately, our Western minds will try to conceptualize the issue as situational leadership as our view of reality constrains our thinking.” (Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Press.) REFERENCES Bhindi, N., Duignan, P. (1997) Leadership for the new century. Authenticity, intentionality, spirituality and sensibility. London: Sage Publications. Blackmore., Bigum, C., Hodgens, J., Laskey,L. (1996) Managing Change and Self Management in Schools of the Future. Leading and Managing. 2 (3), 195-220. Bensimon, Estela. (1989). A feminist reinterpretation of presidents definitions of Leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3): 143-156. Bensimon, E., Neumann, A., Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative leadership. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Press. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Press. Grint, K. (1997). Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 722-743 Block, P. (1993) Stewardship, choosing service over self-interest. San Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Cooper, C., Henderson, N. (1995) Motivating schools in change. Launceston: Global Learning Communities. Combs, A.W. (1991) The schools we need. New York: University Press of America Inc. Braham, B. (1995) Creating the learning community. California: Crisp Publications. Brewer, A.M. (1995) The changing nature of schools. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Fullan, M., Miles, M (1992) Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesnt. Phi Delta Kappan. June, 1992. 745-752 Groundwater -Smith, S., Cusworth, R., Dobbins, R. (1998) Teaching challenges and dilemmas. Sydney: Harcourt Brace. Hanson, E.M. (1996) Educational administration and educational behaviour. 4th.Ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Kaye, M. (1996) Myth-makers and Story-tellers. Sydney: Business and Professions Publications. Kouzes, J., Posner, B. (1993) Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Loader, D. (1997) The inner principal. London: Falmer Press. McGuinness, S. (1992) Effective leadership in schools. Studies in Education. 8(1), 3-13. Morine-Dershimer, G.(1992) Managing Educational Change: The Teachers Perspective. Curriculum and Teaching. 7 (4), 1-12. Mortimer, P. (1996) The School as a Community of Learners. Leading and Managing. 2 (4), 251-266. Nahavandi, A. (1997) The art and science of leadership. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. OMurchu, D. (1997) Quantum Theology. New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company. Olivio, B.J., Bernard, M.B. (1988) Emerging leadership vistas. Toronto: Lexington Press. Pitcher, (1997) The Drama of leadership. Sydney: John Wiley and Sons. Sarros, J.C., Butchatsky, O. (1996) Leadership. Sydney: Harper-Collins. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1987) The principalship: a reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allen and Bacon Inc. Starratt, R.J. (1996) Transforming educational administration: meaning, community and excellence. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Starratt, R.J (1993) Conversations about leadership and school renewal.Transforming life in schools. Melbourne: ACEA Bridges Series. 12-16. Stoll, L., Fink, D. (1997)Changing our schools. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wheatley, M. (1992) Leadership and a new science. San Franscisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Wilson, J., Barnacoat, M. (1994) The self-managing strategy. Sydney: Business and professional Publishing. Blackmore., Bigum, C., Hodgens, J., Laskey,L. (1996) Managing Change and Self Management in Schools of the Future. Leading and Managing. 2 (3), 195-220. Braham, B. (1995) Creating the learning community. California: Crisp Publications. Mortimer, P. (1996) The School as a Community of Learners. Leading and Managing. 2 (4), 251-266. Wilson, J., Barnacoat, M. (1994) The self-managing strategy. Sydney: Business and professional Publishing. Read More